Comprehensive pharmaceutical care to prevent drug-related readmissions of dependent-living elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial

Components of pharmacist-led medication reviews and their relationship to outcomes: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacist-led medication reviews are an established intervention to support patients prescribed multiple medicines or with complex medication regimes. For this systematic review, a medication review was defined as 'a consultation between a pharmacist and a patient to review the patient's total medicines use with a view to improve patient health outcomes and minimise medicines-related problems'. It is not known how varying approaches to medication reviews lead to different outcomes.

AIM

To explore the common themes associated with positive outcomes from pharmacist-led medication reviews.

METHOD

Randomised controlled trials of pharmacist-led medication reviews in adults aged 18 years and over were included. The search terms used in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were "medication review", "pharmacist", "randomised controlled trial" and their synonyms, time filter 2015 to September 2023. Studies published before 2015 were identified from a previous systematic review. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool. Descriptions of medication reviews' components, implementation and outcomes were narratively synthesised to draw out common themes. Results are presented in tables.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight papers describing 50 studies met the inclusion criteria. Common themes that emerged from synthesis include collaborative working which may help reduce medicines-related problems and the number of medicines prescribed; patient involvement in goal setting and action planning which may improve patients' ability to take medicines as prescribed and help them achieve their treatment goals; additional support and follow-up, which may lead to improved blood pressure, diabetes control, quality of life and a reduction of medicines-related problems.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified common themes and components, for example, goal setting, action planning, additional support and follow-up, that may influence outcomes of pharmacist-led medication reviews. Researchers, health professionals and commissioners could use these for a comprehensive evaluation of medication review implementation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020173907.

Effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation on medication errors at hospital discharge and healthcare utilization in the next 30 days: a pragmatic clinical trial

Transitions of care often lead to medication errors and unnecessary healthcare utilization. Medication reconciliation has been repeatedly shown to reduce this risk. However, the great majority of evidence is limited to the provision of medication reconciliation within clinical trials and countries with well-established clinical pharmacy. Thus, this pragmatic, prospective, controlled trial evaluated the effectiveness of routine pharmacist-led medication reconciliation compared to standard care on medication errors and unplanned healthcare utilization in adult general medical patients hospitalized in a teaching hospital in Slovenia. All patients hospitalized in a ward where medication reconciliation was integrated into routine clinical practice were included in the intervention group and received admission and discharge medication reconciliation, coupled with patient counselling. The control group consisted of randomly selected patients from the remaining medical wards. The primary study outcome was unplanned healthcare utilization within 30 days of discharge, and the secondary outcomes were clinically important medication errors at hospital discharge and serious unplanned healthcare utilization within 30 days of discharge. Overall, 414 patients (53.4% male, median 71 years) were included-225 in the intervention group and 189 in the control group. In the intervention group, the number of patients with clinically important medication errors at discharge was significantly lower (intervention vs control group: 9.3% vs 61.9%). Multiple logistic regression revealed that medication reconciliation reduced the likelihood of a clinically important medication error by 20-fold, while a higher number of medications on admission was associated with an increased likelihood. However, no significant differences were noted in any and serious unplanned healthcare utilization (intervention vs control group: 33.9% vs 27.8% and 20.3% vs 14.6%, respectively). The likelihood of serious healthcare utilization increased with the age of the patient, the number of medications on admission and being hospitalized for an acute medical condition. Our pragmatic trial confirmed that medication reconciliation, even when performed as part of routine clinical practice, led to a substantial reduction in the risk of clinically important medication errors at hospital discharge but not to a reduction in healthcare utilization. Medication reconciliation is a fundamental, albeit not sufficient, element to ensure patient safety after hospital discharge. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?id=NCT06207500, identifier NCT06207500.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Interventions to Reduce Adverse Drug Reactions in Older Adults: An Update

BACKGROUND

We previously reported that interventions to optimize medication use reduced adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by 21% and serious ADRs by 36% in older adults. With new evidence, we sought to update the systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

We searched OVID, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar from 30 April 2017-30 April 2023. Included studies had to be randomized controlled trials of older adults (mean age ≥65 years) taking medications that examined the outcome of ADRs. Two authors independently reviewed all citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed studies for potential bias. The outcomes were any and serious ADRs. We performed subgroup analyses by intervention type and setting. Random-effects models were used to combine the results from multiple studies and create summary estimates.

RESULTS

Six studies are new to the update, resulting in 19 total studies (15,675 participants). Interventions were pharmacist-led (10 studies), other healthcare professional-led (5 studies), technology based (3 studies), and educational (1 study). The interventions were implemented in various clinical settings, including hospitals, outpatient clinics, long-term care facilities/rehabilitation wards, and community pharmacies. In the pooled analysis, the intervention group participants were 19% less likely to experience an ADR (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.96) and 32% less likely to experience a serious ADR (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96). We also found that pharmacist-led interventions reduced the risk of any ADR by 35%, compared with 8% for other types of interventions.

CONCLUSION

Interventions significantly and substantially reduced the risk of ADRs and serious ADRs in older adults. Future research should examine whether effectiveness of interventions vary across health care settings to identify those most likely to benefit. Implementation of successful interventions in health care systems may improve medication safety in older patients.

Analysis of Costs Associated with the Use of Personalized Automated Dosing Systems versus Manual Preparation in a Residential Center for the Elderly in Extremadura

INTRODUCTION

During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, there has been a decrease in the supervision of the medication of subjects with chronic diseases. Customized automated dosing systems (SPDA) are devices that allow medication to be dispensed and administered, which have proven to be safe and effective for the patient and cost-effective for the healthcare system.

METHODS

an intervention study was carried out on patients from January to December 2019 in a residential centre for the elderly with more than 100 beds. The economic costs derived from manual dosing were compared with those of an automated preparation (Robotik Technology^®).

RESULTS

Of the 198 patients included, 195 (97.47%) of them were polymedicated. Of the total of 276 active substances of registered medicinal products, it was possible to include them in the process of automating the preparation of the SPDA 105 active pharmaceutical ingredients. A cost reduction of EUR 5062.39 per year was found using SPDA. Taking into account the active ingredients of emblistable and non-emblistable medicines, the use of SPDA resulted in savings of EUR 6120.40 per year. The system contributed to the detection of cases of therapeutic duplication and reduced the time to prepare the medication.

CONCLUSIONS

the use of SPDA is a useful and economically profitable strategy for its use in residential centres for the elderly.

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND

A medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

In this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

Prescriptions of Antipsychotics in Younger and Older Geriatric Patients with Polypharmacy, Their Safety, and the Impact of a Pharmaceutical-Medical Dialogue on Antipsychotic Use

Geriatric patients are a particularly vulnerable and, at the same time, very heterogeneous group due to their multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Antipsychotics are often prescribed in their complex drug regimens, whereby the prescription of antipsychotics is not without controversy. To date, questions remain as to whether there are differences in the prescribing pattern, safety, and impact of a consultant pharmacist regarding antipsychotic use between younger and older geriatric patients in the heterogenic geriatric group. This monocentric study of 744 patients was based on the analysis of routine data collected from January 2018 to June 2020 in a geriatric department during a weekly pharmaceutical and medical consultation. The frequency of the prescription of antipsychotics in our study was 30.7%. Regarding antipsychotic safety and/or adverse drug reaction (ADR) antipsychotics, only a difference in terms of overuse in younger geriatric patients was found. The binary logistic regression analyses of geriatric patients with antipsychotics revealed that ADRs and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were particularly related to the number of medications prescribed. The higher the number of prescribed drugs, the higher the risk of ADRs and DDIs. In 26.7% of geriatric patients on antipsychotics, the pharmacist made recommendations that were almost exclusively implemented by the physician, with no difference made between the two age groups. The prescriptions of antipsychotics in geriatric patients with polypharmacy, their safety, and the impact of a pharmaceutical-medical dialogue on the use of antipsychotics seem comparable between younger and older geriatric patients in the geriatric setting. Antipsychotics should always be critically considered and used cautiously, whereby a regular pharmaceutical-medical dialogue is recommended in geriatric settings.

Medication appropriateness on an acute geriatric care unit: the impact of the removal of a clinical pharmacist

BACKGROUND

evidence is largely available indicating benefits to adding a pharmacist on acute care wards. The benefits of maintaining pharmacotherapeutic consultant services on a geriatric ward remain unexplored.

OBJECTIVES

to determine the impact of the removal of a clinical pharmacist from an acute geriatric ward on patients' Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores, admission-related outcomes and drug burdens.

METHODS

researchers consulted the archives for records of patients admitted to the geriatric care unit before and after the pharmacist's withdrawal. The primary outcome of differential MAI scores and secondary outcomes of rehospitalisations, emergency department visits, durations of hospitalisation and differential drug count were compared pre- and post-intervention. An interrupted time series analysis regression model was used for the primary outcome.

RESULTS

a total of 305 patients admitted before (n = 208) and after (n = 97) the pharmacist's withdrawal were included in the study. The intervention had a significant impact on the primary outcome, increasing the relative differential MAI score (adjusted mean) by 9.3 points (95% confidence interval 3.9-14.6). As for the secondary outcomes, differences in admission-related outcomes were non-significant but the mean differential drug count significantly increased post-intervention from 0.02 to 1.36 (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

the removal of the pharmacist led to an increase in inappropriate drug prescription. Careful consideration should be given to decisions regarding the removal of the pharmacist from acute geriatric care teams.

Effects of hospital pharmacist interventions on health outcomes in older polymedicated inpatients: a scoping review

PURPOSE

To identify the evidence that supports the effect of interventions made by hospital pharmacists, individually or in collaboration with a multidisciplinary team, in terms of healthcare outcomes, a more effective utilization of resources and lower costs in older polymedicated inpatients.

METHODS

We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. We also conducted a hand search by checking the references cited in the primary studies and studies included in reviews identified during the process of research. Four review authors working by pairs searched for studies, extracted data, and drew up the results tables.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were included in the review. In 13 of them pharmacists carried out their intervention exclusively while the patients were in hospital, whereas in 13 interventions were delivered during admission and after hospital discharge. Outcomes identified were mortality, length of stay, visits to the emergency department, readmissions and reported quality of life, among others. Pharmacist interventions were found to be beneficial in fifteen studies, specifically on hospital readmissions, visits to the emergency department and healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

There is no hard evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of hospital pharmacist interventions in older polymedicated patients. Mortality does not show as a relevant outcome. Other health care outcomes, such as hospital readmissions, visits to the emergency department and healthcare costs, seem to be more relevant and amenable to change. Interventions that include pharmacists in multidisciplinary geriatric teams seem to be more promising that isolated pharmacist interventions. Interventions prolonged after hospital discharge seem to be more appropriate that interventions delivered only during hospital admission. Better-designed studies should be conducted in the future to provide further insight into the effect of hospital pharmacist interventions.

Medication review interventions to reduce hospital readmissions in older people

Objective

To assess the efficacy of medication review as an isolated intervention and with several co‐interventions for preventing hospital readmissions in older adults.

Methods

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of medication review interventions with or without co‐interventions to prevent hospital readmissions in hospitalized or recently discharged adults aged ≥65, until September 13, 2019. Included outcomes were “at least one all‐cause hospital readmission within 30 days and at any time after discharge from the index admission.”

Results

Twenty‐five studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 studies (7,318 participants) contributed to the network meta‐analysis (NMA) on all‐cause hospital readmission within 30 days. Medication review in combination with (a) medication reconciliation and patient education (risk ratio (RR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26–0.80) and (b) medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49–0.84) were associated with a lower risk of all‐cause hospital readmission compared to usual care. Medication review in isolation did not significantly influence hospital readmissions (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.45–2.51). The NMA on all‐cause hospital readmission at any time included 24 studies (11,677 participants). Medication review combined with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care resulted in a reduction of hospital readmissions (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74–0.91) compared to usual care. The quality of the studies included in this systematic review raised some concerns, mainly regarding allocation concealment, blinding and contamination.

Conclusion

Medication review in combination with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care, was associated with a lower risk of hospital readmissions compared to usual care. An effect of medication review without co‐interventions was not demonstrated. Trials of higher quality are needed in this field.

Impact of pharmacist interventions during transition of care in older adults to reduce the use of healthcare services: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Current literature has shown increasing risk of error in transition of care between different healthcare settings, especially in the older population. Moreover, drug-related hospital readmission has been reported due to lack of appropriate communication. However, the literature is not clear about the impact of pharmacist interventions during transition of care of older adults on the reduction in use of healthcare services.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the scoping review was to describe the impact of pharmacist interventions during transitions of care for older adults on the use of healthcare services.

METHODS

MEDLINE was searched for randomized controlled trials and controlled studies that analyzed pharmacist interventions during transition of care of older adults with regard to use of healthcare services. Four reviewers, grouped in pairs, independently screened all references published from 1990 to 2019 and extracted and analyzed the data. A pharmaceutical model of 8 pharmacist-led interventions was adapted from literature to compare the included studies.

RESULTS

There were 1527 publications screened, 17 of which met inclusion criteria. Pharmacist-led interventions decreased the use of healthcare services in 11 of these studies. The majority of studies were of very good or good quality based on Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Pharmacist were implicated at all times during the transition of care process (i.e. admission/during stay, discharge and post-discharge) in 4 of the effective studies, whereas none did in the not effective studies. More interventions were accomplished by pharmacists in studies with positive outcomes.

CONCLUSION

By diversifying their interventions at different moments throughout transition of care, pharmacists can reduce the use of healthcare services for older adults during transition of care. This scoping review also shows the need to better understand key components of post-discharge interventions and to have a dynamic pharmaceutical model accepted by the scientific community.

Interventions to deprescribe potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: Lost in translation?

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) remains common in older adults, despite the easy availability of screening tools such as the Beers and Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Multiple published studies have implemented these screening tools to encourage deprescribing of PIMs, with mixed results. Little is known about the reasons behind the success or failure of these interventions, or what could be done to improve their impact. Implementation science (IS) provides a set of theories, models and frameworks to address these questions. The goal of this study was to conduct a focused narrative review of the deprescribing literature through an IS lens-to determine the extent to which implementation factors were identified and the intermediate steps in the intervention were measured. A better understanding of the existing literature, including its gaps, may provide a roadmap for future research.

METHODS

PubMed search from 2000-2019 using appropriate MeSH headings.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

controlled trials or prospective cohort studies intended to reduce PIMs in the elderly that used hospitalizations and/or emergency department visits as outcome measures. Studies were reviewed to identify potential implementation factors (known as determinants), using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide. In addition, intermediate outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 548 reviewed abstracts, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria and underwent detailed analysis. Of the 14 studies, 10 acknowledged potential implementation determinants that could be mapped onto CFIR. The most commonly identified determinant was the degree of pharmacist integration into the medical team (seven of 14 studies), which mapped onto the CFIR construct of 'networks and communication'. Several important CFIR constructs were absent in the reviewed literature. Intermediate measures were captured by 12 of the 14 reviewed papers, but the choice of measures was inconsistent across studies.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

In recent high-quality studies of deprescribing interventions, we found limited acknowledgement of factors known to be important to successful implementation and inconsistent reporting of intermediate outcomes. These findings indicate missed opportunities to understand the factors underlying study outcomes. As a result, we run the risk of rejecting worthwhile interventions due to negative results, when the correct interpretation might be that they failed in implementation. In other words, they were 'lost in translation'. Studies that rigorously examine and report on the implementation process are needed to tease apart this important distinction.

Investigating the effect of clinical pharmacist intervention in transitions of care on drug-related hospital readmissions among the elderly: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Drug-related problems (DRPs) are a major cause of unplanned hospital admissions among elderly people, and transitions of care have been emphasised as a key area for improving patient safety. We have designed a complex clinical pharmacist intervention that targets people ≥75 years of age undergoing transitions of care from hospital to home and primary care. The main objective is to investigate if the intervention can reduce the risk of unplanned drug-related readmission within the first 180 days after the person is discharged from hospital.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a randomised, controlled, superiority trial with two parallel arms. A total of 700 people ≥75 years will be assigned to either intervention or routine care (control). The intervention, which aims to find and manage DRPs, is initiated within a week of the person being discharged from hospital and combines repeated medical chart reviews, phone interviews and in some cases medication reviews. People in both study arms may have been the subject of a medication review during their ward stay. As the primary outcome, we will measure time until unplanned drug-related readmission within 180 days of leaving hospital and use log rank tests and Cox proportional hazard models to analyse differences between the groups. Further investigations of subgroup effects and adjustments of the regression models will be based on heart failure and cognitive impairment as prognostic factors.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå (registration numbers 2017-69-31M, 2018-83-32M and 2018-254-32M). We intend to publish the results with open access in international peer-reviewed journals and present our findings at international conferences. The trial is expected to result in more than one published article and form part of two PhD theses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03671629.

The New Era of Pharmacists in Ambulatory Patient Care

Pharmacy is evolving from a product-oriented to a patient-oriented profession. This role modification is extremely healthy for the patient, the pharmacist, and other members of the health-care team. However, the evolution will present pharmacists with a number of new challenges. Now, more than in the past, pharmacists must make the acquisition of contemporary practice knowledge and skills a high priority, to render the level of service embodied in the concept of pharmaceutical care. Pharmacy educators' organizations and regulatory bodies must all work together to support pharmacists as they assume expanded health-care roles. Pharmacy and the healthcare industry must work to ensure that the pharmacist is compensated justly for all services. But before this can happen it will be necessary for pharmacy to demonstrate value-added to the cost of the prescription. Marketing of the purpose of pharmacy in the health-care morass and of the services provided by the pharmacist is needed to generate an appropriate perceived value among purchasers and users of health-care services. Pharmacists should view themselves as dispensers of therapy and drug effect interpretations as well as of drugs themselves. Service components of pharmacy should be identified clearly to third party payers and be visible to consumers, so that they know what is available at what cost and how it may be accessed. In the future, pharmacy services must be evaluated on patient outcome (i.e., pharmaceutical care) rather than the number of prescriptions dispensed, and pharmacy must evolve toward interpretation and patient consultation, related to the use of medication technologies.